Lau v. Nichols

Last updated

Lau v. Nichols
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued December 10, 1973
Decided January 21, 1974
Full case nameLau, et al. v. Nichols, et al.
Citations414 U.S. 563 ( more )
94 S. Ct. 786; 39 L. Ed. 2d 1; 1974 U.S. LEXIS 151
Case history
PriorCertiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Holding
The failure of the San Francisco school system to provide English language instruction to approximately 1,800 students of Chinese ancestry who do not speak English violates § 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices
William O. Douglas  · William J. Brennan Jr.
Potter Stewart  · Byron White
Thurgood Marshall  · Harry Blackmun
Lewis F. Powell Jr.  · William Rehnquist
Case opinions
MajorityDouglas, joined by Brennan, Marshall, Powell, Rehnquist
ConcurrenceStewart, joined by Burger, Blackmun
ConcurrenceWhite
ConcurrenceBlackmun, joined by Burger
Laws applied
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court unanimously decided that the lack of supplemental language instruction in public school for students with limited English proficiency violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The court held that since non-English speakers were denied a meaningful education, the disparate impact caused by the school policy violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the case was remanded to the District Court "for the fashioning of appropriate relief". [1]

Contents

Background

In 1971, the San Francisco school system desegregated based on the result of Supreme Court case Lee v. Johnson. At that time, 2,856 Chinese and Hispanic students, who were not fluent in English, were integrated back into the San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD). Only about 1000 of those students were provided supplemental English instruction. Of the other 1800-plus Chinese students who were not fluent in English, many were placed in special education classes while some were forced to be in the same grade for years. [1]

Even though the Bilingual Education Act was passed by Congress in 1968 to address the needs of Limited English Speaking Abilities students, its application was limited. [2] School participation in those programs was also voluntary, and, by 1972, "only 100,391 students nationally, out of approximately 5,000,000 in need were enrolled in a Title VII-funded program." [3]

Edward H. Steinman, a public-interest lawyer, reached out to the parents of Kinney Kinmon Lau and other Chinese students with limited English proficiency. He encouraged them to challenge the school district, and they filed a class action suit against Alan H. Nichols, the president of the SFUSD at the time, and other officials in the school district. [4] The students claimed that they were not receiving special help in school due to their inability to speak English, and they argued they were entitled to special help under the Fourteenth Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because of equal protection and the ban on educational discrimination. [1]

The District Court for the Northern District of California denied the relief and the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the decision. The District Court argued that since a uniform policy was used for all students in SFUSD and that the district didn't intentionally discriminate against students with limited English proficiency, equal protection was provided and the Fourteenth Amendment was not violated. The Court of Appeals claimed that since the school district provided the same treatment for all students, even though some students were disadvantaged due to their limited fluency in English, the school district was not required to make up for the different starting points of students. [5] The students appealed the Court of Appeal's decision to the Supreme Court.

Decision of the Supreme Court

Justice Harry Blackmun, who concurred with the decision and stated that the number of students affected in this case was substantial enough to deem affirmative remedies necessary. Justice Blackmun Official.jpg
Justice Harry Blackmun, who concurred with the decision and stated that the number of students affected in this case was substantial enough to deem affirmative remedies necessary.

The Supreme Court issued its decision on January 21, 1974, with the Court unanimously ruling in favor of Lau. Instead of examining the equal protection clause from the 14th Amendment, the Court relied on Section 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Since the school system received federal funding, it was required to provide equal opportunities and access to all students. The Court claimed that even though the school districts provided equal treatment for all students, it still imposed disparate impact on the non-English speaking students since they were not able to understand the class material as effectively as other students and therefore were deprived of having "meaningful" education. The Court also referenced the guideline established by the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare in 1970, which stated that language could be used as a proxy of discrimination on national origin and that "the district must take affirmative steps to rectify the language deficiency in order to open its instructional program to these students." [6] The case was remanded to the District Court "for the fashioning of appropriate relief". [1]

Justice Potter Stewart, joined by Chief Justice Burger and Justice Blackmun, concurred with this decision as he stated that affirmative remedial efforts, suggested by the OCR, were constitutional and appropriate in this case as long as the efforts were "reasonably related to the purposes of the enabling legislation." In his concurrence joined by Chief Justice Burger, Justice Blackmun also suggested that "numbers are at the heart of this case" and that if the case only involved a few students, rather than nearly 2,000, the decision would not be the same. [1]

Legacy

Lau remains an important decision in bilingual education history. In this case, the Supreme Court found a violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 based on the discriminatory effect of the school policy, regardless of the intent of the officials. It prohibited the "sink or swim" policy and set a precedent of finding disparate impact in violation of the Civil Rights Act. [7] The decision was subsequently followed by the passing of Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 in Congress, which specifically prohibited discrimination against faculty and students in public schools and required the school districts to take "appropriate action" to overcome the barriers to equal participation of all students. [8] It increased funding to the Bilingual Education Act and made additional English instruction mandatory, which effectively extended the Lau ruling to all public schools. [2] The Office for Civil Rights then developed a remedial guideline in 1975, otherwise known as the Lau Remedies, that specified methods and approaches for school districts to follow in order to provide a meaningful education to students with limited English proficiency. This led to the development of bilingual programs and additional English instruction in most public schools. [9]

However, there have been challenges to the Lau decision in recent decades. In the Supreme Court case Alexander v. Sandoval , 532 U.S. 275 (2001), the Court claimed that private plaintiffs did not have the right of action to sue against disparate impact violation under Title VI and they must provide proof of intentional discrimination. It implied that students can no longer sue schools for policies that cause disparate impact, which significantly weakened the foundation of the Lau decision. [10]

See also

Related Research Articles

Separate but equal was a legal doctrine in United States constitutional law, according to which racial segregation did not necessarily violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which nominally guaranteed "equal protection" under the law to all people. Under the doctrine, as long as the facilities provided to each race were equal, state and local governments could require that services, facilities, public accommodations, housing, medical care, education, employment, and transportation be segregated by race, which was already the case throughout the states of the former Confederacy. The phrase was derived from a Louisiana law of 1890, although the law actually used the phrase "equal but separate".

United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000), is a U.S. Supreme Court decision that held that parts of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 were unconstitutional because they exceeded the powers granted to the US Congress under the Commerce Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Along with United States v. Lopez (1995), it was part of a series of Rehnquist Court cases that limited Congress's powers under the Commerce Clause.

Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356 (2001), was a United States Supreme Court case about Congress's enforcement powers under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court decided that Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act was unconstitutional, insofar as it allowed states to be sued by private citizens for money damages.

The Equal Protection Clause is part of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The clause, which took effect in 1868, provides "nor shall any State ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." It mandates that individuals in similar situations be treated equally by the law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Elementary and Secondary Education Act</span> 1965 US law

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was passed by the 89th United States Congress and signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson on April 11, 1965. Part of Johnson's "War on Poverty", the act has been one of the most far-reaching pieces of federal legislation affecting education ever passed by the United States Congress, and was further emphasized by the revised No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Civil Rights Act of 1991</span> US labor law passed in 1991

The Civil Rights Act of 1991 is a United States labor law, passed in response to United States Supreme Court decisions that limited the rights of employees who had sued their employers for discrimination. The Act represented the first effort since the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to modify some of the basic procedural and substantive rights provided by federal law in employment discrimination cases. It provided the right to trial by jury on discrimination claims and introduced the possibility of emotional distress damages and limited the amount that a jury could award. It added provisions to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protections expanding the rights of women to sue and collect compensatory and punitive damages for sexual discrimination or harassment.

Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971), was a court case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on December 14, 1970. It concerned employment discrimination and the disparate impact theory, and was decided on March 8, 1971. It is generally considered the first case of its type.

Disparate impact in the law of the United States refers to practices in employment, housing, and other areas that adversely affect one group of people of a protected characteristic more than another, even though rules applied by employers or landlords are formally neutral. Although the protected classes vary by statute, most federal civil rights laws consider race, color, religion, national origin, and sex to be protected characteristics, and some laws include disability status and other traits as well. Disparate impact can be justified with the normative goal of substantive equality, the equality of outcomes for groups.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bilingual Education Act</span> Language education law of the United States

The Bilingual Education Act (BEA), also known as the Title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Amendments of 1967, was the first United States federal legislation that recognized the needs of limited English speaking ability (LESA) students. The BEA was introduced in 1967 by Texas senator Ralph Yarborough and was both approved by the 90th United States Congress and signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson on January 2, 1968. While some states, such as California and Texas, and numerous local school districts around the country already had policies and programs designed to meet the special educational needs of elementary and secondary school students not fluent in the English language, this act signaled that the federal government now also recognized the need for and value of bilingual education programs in U.S. public education. In 1969 there was a 50% drop out rate among Mexican American students who struggled to keep up with their English-speaking peers in school; Representative Tony Abril argued that the Bilingual Education Act would reduce this number. Passed on the heels of the Civil Rights Movement, its purpose was to provide school districts with federal funds, in the form of competitive grants, to establish innovative educational programs for students with limited English speaking ability.

The English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and Academic Achievement Act - formerly known as the Bilingual Education Act - is a federal grant program described in Title III Part A of the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), which was reauthorized as the No Child Left Behind Act in 2002 and again as the Every Student Succeeds Act in 2015. This section is specifically targeted to benefit Limited English Proficient (LEP) children and immigrant youth. The statute states that LEP students must not only attain English proficiency but simultaneously meet the same academic standards as their English-speaking peers in all content areas. Federal funding is provided to assist State Education Agencies (SEAs) and Local Education Agencies (LEAs) in meeting these requirements. In 2011, ESEA Title III awards were granted to 56 SEAs and the average award given to an individual SEA was $12,158,046.

Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632 (1974), found that overly restrictive maternity leave regulations in public schools violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment.

<i>Castañeda v. Pickard</i> 1981 court case regarding language education in the United States

The case of Castañeda v. Pickard was tried in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas in 1978. This case was filed against the Raymondville Independent School District (RISD) in Texas by Roy Castañeda, the father of two Mexican-American children. Castañeda claimed that the RISD was discriminating against his children because of their ethnicity. He argued that the classroom his children were being taught in was segregated, using a grouping system for classrooms based on criteria that were both ethnically and racially discriminating.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974</span> Civil rights law of the United States

The Equal Educational Opportunities Act (EEOA) of 1974 is a federal law of the United States of America. It prohibits discrimination against faculty, staff, and students, including racial segregation of students, and requires school districts to take action to overcome barriers to students' equal participation. It is one of a number of laws affecting educational institutions including the Rehabilitation Act (1973), Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

Runyon v. McCrary, 427 U.S. 160 (1976), was a landmark case by the United States Supreme Court, which ruled that private schools that discriminate on the basis of race or establish racial segregation are in violation of federal law. Whereas Brown v. Board of Education barred segregation by public schools, this case barred segregation in private schools. This decision is built on Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co. another landmark civil rights case that affirmed the federal government's ability to penalize racist acts by private actors.

<i>Espinoza v. Farah Manufacturing Co.</i> 1973 United States Supreme Court case

Espinoza v. Farah Mfg. Co., 414 U.S. 86 (1973), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that an employer's refusal to hire a person because he is not a United States citizen does not constitute employment discrimination on the basis of "national origin" in violation of §703 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S. 557 (2009), is a United States labor law case of the United States Supreme Court on unlawful discrimination through disparate impact under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Structured English Immersion (SEI) is a total immersion bilingual education technique for rapidly teaching English to English language learners. The term was coined by Keith Baker and Adriana de Kanter in a 1983 recommendation to schools to make use of Canada's successful French immersion programs. The Canadian model was developed to encourage bilingualism through immersing Anglophones in the minority language and replaced many English-only laws in various Canadian provinces before the 1960s, while in the United States the same approach was advocated to force minority speakers to adopt English.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Vilma Socorro Martínez</span> American diplomat

Vilma Socorro Martínez is an American lawyer, civil rights activist and diplomat who formerly served as the U.S. Ambassador to Argentina from 2009 to 2013 under President Barack Obama.

Title IX of the United States Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits discrimination "on the basis of sex" in educational programs and activities that receive financial assistance from the federal government. The Obama administration interpreted Title IX to cover discrimination on the basis of assigned sex, gender identity, and transgender status. The Trump administration determined that the question of access to sex-segregated facilities should be left to the states and local school districts to decide. The validity of the executive's position is being tested in the federal courts.

The federal government of the United States has limited authority to act on education, and education policy serves to support the education systems of state and local governments through funding and regulation of elementary, secondary, and post-secondary education. The Department of Education serves as the primary government organization responsible for enacting federal education policy in the United States.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974).
  2. 1 2 Punches, Michael W. (January 1, 1985). "The Shaping of a Social Policy: The Bilingual Education Act, 1968-1984". Journal of Thought. 20 (4): 62–70. JSTOR   42589123.
  3. ↑ Petrzela, Natalia M (2010). "Before the Federal Bilingual Education Act: Legislation and Lived Experience in California". Peabody Journal of Education. 85 (4): 414. doi:10.1080/0161956X.2010.518021. S2CID   144940469.
  4. ↑ "Languages, Law, and San Francisco - Education Week". Education Week. January 25, 1984. Archived from the original on May 12, 2021. Retrieved December 9, 2016.
  5. ↑ Sugarman, Stephen D.; Widess, Ellen G. (January 1, 1974). "Equal Protection for Non-English-Speaking School Children: Lau v. Nichols". California Law Review. 62 (1): 157–182. doi:10.2307/3479823. JSTOR   3479823.
  6. ↑ "DHEW Memo Regarding Language Minority Children". www2.ed.gov. October 15, 2015. Archived from the original on November 30, 2022. Retrieved November 17, 2016.
  7. ↑ Moran, Rachel F. (2005). "Undone by Law: The Uncertain Legacy of Lau v. Nichols". Berkeley la Raza Law Journal. 16.
  8. ↑ "Richard Nixon: Special Message to the Congress on Equal Educational Opportunities and School Busing". www.presidency.ucsb.edu. Archived from the original on May 3, 2023. Retrieved November 17, 2016.
  9. ↑ United States. Health, Education and Welfare Department. Task Force Findings Specifying Remedies Available for Eliminating past Educational Practices Ruled Unlawful under LAU v. NICHOLS. N.p.: n.p., 1975. Print.
  10. ↑ Rosenbaum, Sara (January 1, 2004). "Reducing Discrimination Affecting Persons with Limited English Proficiency: Federal Civil Rights Guidelines under Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act". Public Health Reports. 119 (1): 93–96. doi:10.1177/003335490411900115. JSTOR   20056643. PMC   1502263 . PMID   15147653.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.